Environmentalism & the Welfare State?

[FreeThinker713]

Premise 1
Overpopulation is a major environmental problem.

Premise 2
If you lower the cost of something, quantity demanded goes up.

Premise 3
The Welfare State lowers the cost of rearing a child.

Conclusion
The Welfare State and Environmentalism are incompatible or conflict each other on some level

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

But everyone knows the liberal-hippie-environmentalist types are Malthusian wackos already?

[GPDP]

But everyone knows the liberal-hippie-environmentalist types are Malthusian wackos already?

Something tells me he's not mocking them, but actually presenting that very viewpoint.

[FreeThinker713]

But everyone knows the liberal-hippie-environmentalist types are Malthusian wackos already?

Yes, I remember being shown this video in my college environmental biology class where the Earth "had a case of the humans" basically some of them view mankind as a cancer.

This was more targeted at progressive types who don't seem to be antihuman.

At any rate it is very interesting that many of the liberal or progressive types adhere to Keynesian economics who was influenced by Malthus.

I'm curious as to how you view left-leaning moderates?

[Vanguard1917]

Premise 1
Overpopulation is a major environmental problem.

Premise 2
If you lower the cost of something, quantity demanded goes up.

Premise 3
The Welfare State lowers the cost of rearing a child.

Conclusion
The Welfare State and Environmentalism are incompatible or conflict each other on some level

Like Malthus said, attempts to alleviate the poverty and suffering of the masses will only encourage the poor to breed more and would thus make matters worse.

Of course, today's mainstream Malthusians would not attack the poor in such a direct and explicit way. After all, the modern environmentalist movement -- which is predominantly responsible for carrying the Malthusian torch in the 21st century -- possesses 'progressive' and even 'leftwing' pretentions. The Reverend Thomas Malthus, on the other had, possessed none of those, which is partly why he was unafraid to take his theory to its logical conclusions.

But 21st century Malthusians -- e.g. the UK Green Party, which had an MP elected to Parliament last week -- still share the very same assumptions of that theory. They see the very existence of humanity as a problem to be solved. They argue that population control is needed to solve things like conflict, war, poverty, disease, environmental degradation, food shortages, resource shortages, and so on. Apparently, for them, there is no problem that can't be made worse with the addition of more pesky people.

Needless to say, for genuine progressives such a logic has immensely reactionary implications. First and foremost, by shifting the blame for the world's problems away from the social system and towards the masses themselves, it promotes conservatism of the most misanthropic kind. It is, to paraphrase Marx, a libel against humanity.

[FreeThinker713]

Like Malthus said, attempts to alleviate the poverty and suffering of the masses will only encourage the poor to breed more and would thus make matters worse.

Of course, today's mainstream Malthusians would not attack the poor in such a direct and explicit way. After all, the modern environmentalist movement -- which is predominantly responsible for carrying the Malthusian torch in the 21st century -- possesses 'progressive' and even 'leftwing' pretentions. The Reverend Thomas Malthus, on the other had, possessed none of those, which is partly why he was unafraid to take his theory to its logical conclusions.

But 21st century Malthusians -- e.g. the UK Green Party, which had an MP elected to Parliament last week -- still share the very same assumptions of that theory. They see the very existence of humanity as a problem to be solved. They argue that population control is needed to solve things like conflict, war, poverty, disease, environmental degradation, food shortages, resource shortages, and so on. Apparently, for them, there is no problem that can't be made worse with the addition of more pesky people.

Needless to say, for genuine progressives such a logic has immensely reactionary implications. First and foremost, by shifting the blame for the world's problems away from the social system and towards the masses themselves, it promotes conservatism of the most misanthropic kind. It is, to paraphrase Marx, a libel against humanity.

Any child not provided for I place the blame on the parent who had the child while having not secured the means to provide for them. If some random act happened that made them now unable to provide that is different but this is not common.

At any rate, how can an environmentalist who views people as a cancer simultaneously advocate democracy?

How can a progressive who advocates a parental state advocate democracy? If the people aren't fit to make decisions for themselves, then how can they be fit to choose a ruler?

[Vanguard1917]

Any child not provided for I place the blame on the parent who had the child while having not secured the means to provide for them.

Well, that's an extremely mistaken attitude, to say the least. Just like the Malthusians, you're blaming people themselves for their poverty, rather than the irrational system which keeps people poor.

She's to blame for her child's poverty, is she?

http://sponsorachild.worldconcern.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/sponsor-a-child-zimbabwe2.jpg



At any rate, how can an environmentalist who views people as a cancer simultaneously advocate democracy?


Logically, they can't. You make a good point.

Like one of the godfathers of modern environmentalism, Mr James 'Gaia' Lovelock, openly declared recently, democracy stands in the way of fighting climate change because the masses are simply too stupid. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change)

[FreeThinker713]

If someone was born poor and is having trouble feeding themselves that isn't their fault.

However if someone is having trouble feeding themselves and decides to have a kid or has a kid unintentionally but because of her own actions, yes I do blame the mother for her child's poverty. What kind of person has a child they know is going to have to endure starvation?

The system does not make people have kids.

There probably is something wrong with the system, however no system I know of forces people to have kids.

If she got raped that's another story.

[bobroberts]

People have a lot of kids because it increases their chance of survival. It increases the chance that one of their offspring will survive to reproduce. In a poor underdeveloped countries children work and provide for their families, so there is incentive to have a lot of children.

People who live in a well developed country where there is a large chance that your children will be able to survive and grow old will have less incentive to have more children.

The desire to reproduce is one of the oldest instinct we have, and is shared between pretty much every lifeform that has ever existed Earth.Telling people not to reproduce is like telling them not to eat or have sex. Good luck trying to browbeat people into ignoring those desires.

[Vanguard1917]

There probably is something wrong with the system

'Probably'? I think the fact that the bulk of humanity lives in poverty (whether of the 'relative' or 'absolute' kind) shows that there certainly is 'something wrong' with the system. Poverty has economic and social causes; it's caused by capitalism, not poor mothers.

[FreeThinker713]

'Probably'? I think the fact that the bulk of humanity lives in poverty (whether of the 'relative' or 'absolute' kind) shows that there certainly is 'something wrong' with the system. Poverty has economic and social causes; it's caused by capitalism, not poor mothers.

Many African nations have no respect for private property. See Liberia:
youtube.com/watch?v=ZyD0P5SitmU (I don't have enough posts to post links)
So the problem there is beach communism, no one owns the beach, or at least it isn't respected, same thing with the streets.

Why would anyone spend labor, seed and water to plant crops when their harvest will be looted by marauders? The only people who are able to have property are those who have the means to secure it, ie the dictators, so no one has any incentive to build up anything nice because they won't get to keep it.

[#FF0000]

Premise 1
Overpopulation is a major environmental problem.

Premise 2
If you lower the cost of something, quantity demanded goes up.

Premise 3
The Welfare State lowers the cost of rearing a child.

Conclusion
The Welfare State and Environmentalism are incompatible or conflict each other on some level

Except all the empirical evidence in the world says the opposite.

You are stupid.

[Freethinker0713]

Except all the empirical evidence in the world says the opposite.

You are stupid.

Which of my premises do you disagree with?

Do you understand that if you make claims of empiricism it is generally considered customary to cite said evidence? If you choose not to do so your claims are unsubstantiated.

I came here to have a productive discussion. I was not condescending, pretentious or rude and yet I get banned from posting and labeled a reactionary.

What's the point of a forum where you ban someone from posting for not conforming to a particular ideology? That seems to be counter-productive, at least for people who are searching for the truth. It also doesn't seem to be a particularly intellectually honest way of ending an argument.

I want to read something that makes me question my views, I feel scrutiny is very productive. I don't view people on the left as the enemy, I share many of the same values as people on the left, same ends different means. Mostly economic theory and philosophy have brought me to my market voluntarist position.

At any rate would someone please direct me somewhere that has a little more intellectual curiosity? I want to see the most compelling arguments the progressives have made. I actually want to be able to argue with people, because naturally I'm going to need them to respond to my criticisms.

I hope the views of "The Best Mod In Revleft History" aren't representative of the entire revleft community, however mods are supposed to set a good example and usually they only allow mature forum members to be mods. As long as moderation is used to suppress argument I do not intend to view these forums any longer. I will probably check up on this thread for a few days.

[#FF0000]

Which of my premises do you disagree with?

"If you lower the cost of something, quantity demanded goes up."

While this is generally true, welfare states making it cheap to raise a kid doesn't mean that people are going to go out and have kids all over the place. Birth rates tend to plummet with rises in "quality of life". Germany, for example, is scared that there aren't enough people having kids. Across the board, actually, Europe tends to have a pretty low birth rate when compared to places that don't have a welfare state.

Things like education, the prevalence and ease of access to contraceptives, and that sort of thing, have a far bigger impact on birth rates than the cost of having a kid.


I came here to have a productive discussion. I was not condescending, pretentious or rude and yet I get banned from posting and labeled a reactionary.

You aren't banned. You're restricted. And this is just something we do now because people can't seem to keep "capitalism vs. communism" out of the main boards, which are intended specifically for leftist discussion.

We also find the views of Malthusians to be repulsive and anti-worker but we like having them around to argue with because it is easy.


At any rate would someone please direct me somewhere that has a little more intellectual curiosity? I want to see the most compelling arguments the progressives have made. I actually want to be able to argue with people, because naturally I'm going to need them to respond to my criticisms.

Welp, I moved your thread to "opposing ideologies", where you can respond to it. I'm sure you noticed this.

[#FF0000]

Oh also Freethinker0713 was banned for being a sockpuppet which is against the rules.

[LeftSideDown]

Premise 1
Overpopulation is a major environmental problem.

If you think Overpopulation is a major problem then you at least have the power to reduce it by one person...

[Havet]

Premise 1
Overpopulation is a major environmental problem.



What evidence do have to support that premise?

[Demogorgon]

Supposing we accept that overpopulation is a problem then it naturally follows that social welfare should be increased because despite demented views put forth by the right about how welfare makes people have lots of children, in actual fact the birthrate is inversely proportionate to the level of human development. Or to put it simply the better the standard of living, the lower the birthrate. Social welfare definitely increases the level of human development therefore if one is concerned with population levels then one should support increased social welfare the world over.

[Publius]

The environment is a major overpopulation problem.

Down with the environment!

[Robert]

Despite demented views put forth by the right about how welfare makes people have lots of children, in actual fact the birthrate is inversely proportionate to the level of human development.

You're half right, Demo. And half wrong.

Monday August 25, 2008
A decade after the passage of welfare reform (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbenefitprograms/a/welfarereform.htm) in 1996, the birth rate among U.S. women receiving public welfare during 2006 was three times higher than that of women not on welfare, reports the Census Bureau. According to the Census' report, Fertility of American Women: 2006 (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/fertility.html), women age 15 to 50 receiving public assistance had a birth rate of 155 births per 1,000 women, compared with 53 births per 1,000 women not receiving welfare.


http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2008/08/25/welfare-continues-to-drive-new-births.htm

[Blake's Baby]

Proving that the better off you are, the fewer children you have. Which is a brilliant argument for giving people more welfare, not less, if you don't want to overpopulate the world.

Of course, we do, because more poor people in the world means more footsoldiers for communism.

Roll on vast populations of the starving! Then we can drown capitalists in the sea of our own corpses! Hurrah!

[leftace53]

Premise 3
The Welfare State lowers the cost of rearing a child.
l

While a welfare state may reduce the monetary cost of rearing a child, it certainly does not eliminate the opportunity cost of rearing a child. The 9 months spent in less than enviable health conditions, and on top of that the whole ordeal of delivering a child. After all that there is about 18 or so years of "putting up" with this child. While child care may be subsidized in this welfare state, there may even be aspects of communal child care, it won't eliminate the psychological parts of actually "raising" a child. I'm sure that there are people who would not change their reproductive plans even if the monetary cost was lowered (I for one, am one of them).

Granted with the lowered monetary cost of child rearing, the abstinence only religious right will have no reason to use abstinence (and their outlandish ways forbid contraceptives), the birth rate within them will probably increase. Yet this will only diminish with the abolition of the super structures like religion.

[FreeThinker713]

Overpopulation is really an environmentalist viewpoint, I don't necessarily hold it but if you are an environmentalist you probably do which is where the contradiction comes.

If you aren't an environmentalist and don't believe overpopulation is a problem then this argument is not directed toward you.

This was largely directed at the moderate "pragmatic" liberal type. So a lot of you on this forum don't even fall into this category, you aren't with the mainstream left.

I did not know how the forum worked, I figured those sections of the forum were only for discussing collectivist ideology but I thought we were allowed to criticize it in that forum. When I posted that with the "sockpuppet" it was still in the other subforum. Sorry for over-reacting, I really thought I had been banned, I guess I had no way of knowing I was allowed to post in this subforum.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm an environmentalist. But it's capitalism that's killing the planet not overpopulation. We produce many times more food than wre need, and then waste most of it. Our power-exploitation systems are hugely inefficient. Capitalism doesn't care, it just wants to make money. Stuff the poor and the environmental consequences.

We could support many times the population that we do with a rational organisation of agriculture and distribution. This will never happen under capitalism. We could also begin to reduce high birth rates if we overthrow capitailsm, because as has already been demonstrated, the poorer you are (less access you have to socially-produced wealth, less opportunities for a decent education, fewer 'life choices' you have) the more likely you are to have more children. So under socialism, when the majority of the world has seen a significant improvement in the quality of their lives, birth rates will most likely fall fairly rapidly.

As to 'not being with the mainstream left', I think you'll find that RevLeft is the mainstream left. 'Liberals' aren't part of the left. What you're talking about is the centre.

[The Grey Blur]

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

[Blake's Baby]

Shit if pro-lifers are on my side I'm changing sides.

Reminds me of South Park.

[FreeThinker713]

I think the very opposite, if we had allowed property rights for every scarce good than I think we would be okay. So because you can only dump so much into the air before it starts to have negative effects, the right to dump could be owned and then you could have private companies getting injunctions against polluters who didn't have the right to pollute.

The right to pollute could be based on who owns the natural factors that clean the air for example the ocean cleans CO2 from the air so whoever owned X square kilometers of ocean could sell the right to pollute.

So the problem is that we have ocean communism and air communism, and there is no way to go after polluters. Just like if you had forest communism everyone would cut down all of the trees because you could own the lumber but not the trees.

I also doubt that socialism would efficiently allocate resources. Basically I think it is unfair to criticize socialists for socialist countries that have restricted what is called "civil liberties", however I do think that the economic conditions in the Soviet Union could be blamed on socialism.

I'm an atheist pro-choice person btw, I don't think the govt has jurisdiction over the womb.

[La Comédie Noire]

The right to pollute could be based on who owns the natural factors that clean the air for example the ocean cleans CO2 from the air so whoever owned X square kilometers of ocean could sell the right to pollute.I believe they are going to do just that except in the form of bidding for licenses to have the right to pollute, however some of the biggest corporations are just going to be given licenses because they're too important to be bothered with paying.

But if you did implement this I don't think it would stop pollution in any significant way, the biggest polluters also happen to be the biggest multi-national corporations, they'd just out bid the medium and small sized companies and go right on polluting. Not to mention it would probably put some of the smaller firms out of business.

Econ 101.

[Ele'ill]

Premise 1
Overpopulation is a major environmental problem.

False.
It isn't overpopulation- it's mismanagment of pretty much everything we do as creatures on this earth. If there was a much smaller population and we lived as we do now- we would still see issues rearing their heads just not as soon.

[FreeThinker713]

I believe they are going to do just that except in the form of bidding for licenses to have the right to pollute, however some of the biggest corporations are just going to be given licenses because they're too important to be bothered with paying.

But if you did implement this I don't think it would stop pollution in any significant way, the biggest polluters also happen to be the biggest multi-national corporations, they'd just out bid the medium and small sized companies and go right on polluting. Not to mention it would probably put some of the smaller firms out of business.

Econ 101.

Well the idea is to raise the cost of polluting and create an incentive to preserve/build up those natural factors that mitigate pollution.

Actually the economist has nothing to say about the ideal size of the firm that is the job of the entrepreneur. They would have more to pay for to so it really isn't that big of an advantage, there are economies of scale and diseconomies of scale.

Think about it in 150 years do you think we will still be using fossil fuels as the main source of our energy?

[Blake's Baby]

No, we'll likely be dead. Not as individuals (that pretty much goes without saying) but as a species. If we don't have a revolution soon there won't be a planet left.

So, for the survivors, if there are any, I would think wood and old trash would be the main things we'll burn.

[Vanguard1917]

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

Great stuff. Thanks for the link.

Overpopulation: one of the biggest, most persistent and most anti-human myths that capitalist society has created.

Couple of short vids from the site, the first one showing how predictions of overpopulation have been shown to be utterly false over and over again throughout more than 200 years, and the second one showing how hunger is not caused by resource shortages but by social and economic factors like poverty and war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXrN9HhnCcM&feature=player_embedded

[Jazzratt]

Great stuff. Thanks for the link.

Overpopulation: one of the biggest, most persistent and most anti-human myths that capitalist society has created.

Couple of short vids from the site, the first one showing how predictions of overpopulation have been shown to be utterly false over and over again throughout more than 200 years, and the second one showing how hunger is not caused by resource shortages but by social and economic factors like poverty and war.

Looking at related videos that at least appear to be done by the same person/group it looks like they're part of some sort of lolberterian movement (coming out with all the usual shit about universal healthcare being a conspiracy against old people and so on). This, of course, doesn't invalidate the videos about overpopulation (in fact I agree with them) it's just depressing how often people who say anything sensible about overpopulation almost always turn out to be raving right-wing nutters.

[FreeThinker713]

Great stuff. Thanks for the link.

Overpopulation: one of the biggest, most persistent and most anti-human myths that capitalist society has created.

Some have defined capitalism so loosely that it encompasses just about everything they don't like in the world. I've heard people say that rape & murder=capitalism, it's really quite funny. They even use "state capitalism" which to me is like saying coercive voluntarism.




Couple of short vids from the site, the first one showing how predictions of overpopulation have been shown to be utterly false over and over again throughout more than 200 years, and the second one showing how hunger is not caused by resource shortages but by social and economic factors like poverty and war.


Yes and their climatology models have been wrong. It wouldn't surprise me if the IPCC is for scientists what the federal reserve is for economists. I heard since 1990 climatology has increased govt funding >10 fold.

Also what they are doing in colleges around the world is smuggling in other things from the environmentalist movement into their science classes. Or in other words they view it as shallow to only want to stop pollution to save humanity, they call that the "spaceship earth view."

I just don't understand why they want to preserve ANWR so bad, there is so much remote land they would probably only develop <1% of it. Besides just about no one ever goes up there, which means they get some satisfaction out of just knowing it is there...

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah well, just because you don't understand the term 'state capitalism' that doesn't mean it's not real. It just means you don't make a lot of effort. When the state is the major actor in the economy, that's state capitalism. Engels and the German socialists (especially Wilhem Leibknecht) outlined all of this in the 1880s - 'there is no state socialism, only state capitalism'.

By the way blaming 'socialism' for 'economic conditions' is a bit like blaming the fire service for arson. Socialism is the end of 'economy'. There is no 'socialist economy' or 'socialist economic conditions'. What you saw in Russia was the failure of a state capitalist economy.

'Their' climatology models. Whose climatology models? Climatology has increased government funding ten-fold? Bollocks. Government funding for climate research may have increased tenfold, but that's not the same thing at all - otherwise 'I see what I eat' would mean the same as 'I eat what I see'.

[Vanguard1917]

Looking at related videos that at least appear to be done by the same person/group it looks like they're part of some sort of lolberterian movement.

It appears that they're 'pro-lifers'. Which confirms your point about it being unfortunate that attacking Malthusianism has been left to sections of the right. I would only add that this is due mainly to the left's capitulation to environmentalism in recent decades. Even so-called Marxist groups seem afraid to open their mouths about the overpopulation myth in case doing so upsets their attempts to win the support of eco-worriers.

Nonetheless, who would i say i have more in common with: the many misguided aspiring humanists who hold 'pro-life' views, or the outright misanthropes of the eco-movement who promote abortion and birth control (especially for those dark people in the third world) as a way of reducing humanity's cancerous presence on Gaia?

It wouldn't be the latter, even though i fully support free and unlimited access to abortion for women.

[FreeThinker713]

Yeah well, just because you don't understand the term 'state capitalism' that doesn't mean it's not real. It just means you don't make a lot of effort. When the state is the major actor in the economy, that's state capitalism. Engels and the German socialists (especially Wilhem Leibknecht) outlined all of this in the 1880s - 'there is no state socialism, only state capitalism'.

By the way blaming 'socialism' for 'economic conditions' is a bit like blaming the fire service for arson. Socialism is the end of 'economy'. There is no 'socialist economy' or 'socialist economic conditions'. What you saw in Russia was the failure of a state capitalist economy.

'Their' climatology models. Whose climatology models? Climatology has increased government funding ten-fold? Bollocks. Government funding for climate research may have increased tenfold, but that's not the same thing at all - otherwise 'I see what I eat' would mean the same as 'I eat what I see'.

When you say end do you mean goal or finish.

The economy will never end, as long as we exist. We will always allocate scarce means toward valuable ends, even if it is done without money, it is still an economy.

There is no goal of an economy, there are only individuals with many goals.

Well I've always defined the various leftist political philosophies as follows:
socialism=public (state) ownership of the means of production.
syndicalism=worker ownership of the means of production
communism=community ownership of the means of production

I've believe I've seen Mises say that Socialism and Communism are interchangeable I don't think that's strictly correct. But I think arguing about definitions is relatively unproductive.

I realize Capitalism is a dirty word that's why I go by Market-Voluntarist rather then AnarchoCapitalist

The climatology models used by the IPCC is what I mean. Yes I had a dyslexic moment, I don't proofread my posts but it seems pretty obvious what I was saying based on the greater context. The Anthropomorphic Global Warming theory is a good career move.

[Blake's Baby]

If Mises supposes his comes are his soces...

OK it socii but I think I can forgiven.

He's right. You're wrong. 'State ownership of the means of production' in a capitalist world system means state capitalism. There is no 'socialist state' because socialism and communism are the same thing - the establishment of a worldwide (no countries or states) classless (no ruling class) communal (propertyless) society of plenty; so no 'scarce resources' there, so no 'economy' either. 'End of economy' is what I meant.

The difference between 'Socialism' and 'Communism' that you will usually find in practice is that 'Communists' in theory believe in revolutionary action by the working class, and 'Socialists' tend to believe in electoral action by the Socialist Party. The fact that the majority of both 'Socialists' and 'Communists' have made an accommodation with capitalism and don't actually believe it can or will be overthrown, and are merely fighting about who administers it, is neither here nor there. Parties are named after ideas. If the party changes its tactics, that doesn't mean 'what they do is the new definition of what their idea-name means'. Otherwise the only person who could define what 'democrat' meant would be Barak Obama. Likewise, just because the French Socialist party wants to get elected and nationalise something, that doesn't mean it's what 'socialism' is.

[FreeThinker713]

If Mises supposes his comes are his soces...

OK it socii but I think I can forgiven.

He's right. You're wrong. 'State ownership of the means of production' in a capitalist world system means state capitalism. There is no 'socialist state' because socialism and communism are the same thing - the establishment of a worldwide (no countries or states) classless (no ruling class) communal (propertyless) society of plenty; so no 'scarce resources' there, so no 'economy' either. 'End of economy' is what I meant.

The difference between 'Socialism' and 'Communism' that you will usually find in practice is that 'Communists' in theory believe in revolutionary action by the working class, and 'Socialists' tend to believe in electoral action by the Socialist Party. The fact that the majority of both 'Socialists' and 'Communists' have made an accommodation with capitalism and don't actually believe it can or will be overthrown, and are merely fighting about who administers it, is neither here nor there. Parties are named after ideas. If the party changes its tactics, that doesn't mean 'what they do is the new definition of what their idea-name means'. Otherwise the only person who could define what 'democrat' meant would be Barak Obama. Likewise, just because the French Socialist party wants to get elected and nationalise something, that doesn't mean it's what 'socialism' is.

No 'scarce resources'...

Just when I was starting to warm up a little bit to you guys for being anti-mainstream

Let me guess this scarcity is caused by evil capitalism...

[Blake's Baby]

I don't have the latest figures but certainly a few years ago the UN figures were that we produce 8 times more food than we need as a planet. Most of it is wasted. That wouldn't happen under socialism.

Sure, after that there are other things. We can't all have an ocean liner each. But with democratic control of resources then 'the economy' ceases to mean anything. There's no buying and selling. There's need, which will be proiritised, and wants, which will be dealt with as we can, and we get to decide which is which. Pretty simple really.

Incidently, the Greeks had no word for 'economy' as we know it. Their word means having an orderly house. 'Economy' is a concept that only has meaning under capitalism, and it will end with the end (finish, not goal) of capitalism.

[FreeThinker713]

I don't have the latest figures but certainly a few years ago the UN figures were that we produce 8 times more food than we need as a planet. Most of it is wasted. That wouldn't happen under socialism.

Sure, after that there are other things. We can't all have an ocean liner each. But with democratic control of resources then 'the economy' ceases to mean anything. There's no buying and selling. There's need, which will be proiritised, and wants, which will be dealt with as we can, and we get to decide which is which. Pretty simple really.

Incidently, the Greeks had no word for 'economy' as we know it. Their word means having an orderly house. 'Economy' is a concept that only has meaning under capitalism, and it will end with the end (finish, not goal) of capitalism.

Well I have different economic views so I don't agree that it would be able to allocate resources better then capitalism.

A universe without scarcity would mean we don't exist in time, it is difficult to imagine what that would look like. At any rate, that obviously isn't what you meant but I still think in the world you imagine there would need to be some way to decide which want we will pursue next, or do you imagine a world where progress has ended?

[Blake's Baby]

'What we persue next' doesn't have to involve scarcity. And allocation of resources doesn't have to involve 'economy'.

Under socialism the resource we'll have most of is time.

[Robert]

Blake, may I ask something? There may be plenty of land and water and petroleum to grow food and prevent starvation and ease transportation if resources were better allocated, but there is only a certain amount of certain highly coveted commodities, like, I don't know, Brazilian rosewood for fine musical instruments, select (and tasty) species of fish and game, beach front property, diamonds, Fabergé eggs, Picassos, and Ferraris. (No, I don't any of them.:lol:)

I understand that these are not "means of production" with which you are concerned about socializing, but how do you see society evolving to the point where there will be no state to protect or control the production and ownership of such things? I know you'll laugh at theses as frivolous examples. But millions really do covet such things. Their demand needs to be satisfied or controlled or eliminated or ... something.

[Blake's Baby]

I suspect that you're not actually looking for a serious answer. But I'll give you one anyway.

Why do people covet these things (I'd suspect not 'millions' but I'm happy to state that at the moment the number of people who want a sports car exceeds the number of sports cars)?

I'd suggest that there are several reasons. The main ones I'd say are:

1 - we gain comfort from unnecessary items because they re-assure us that we have financial security. Conspicious wealth is a safty net that can be traded in when times are hard, so they make us happy as a visual, tactile bank, like a squirrel knowing where his nuts are. Vital under capitalism, unnecessary under socialism. We have material security anyway, no need for Ferraris to prove it;

2 - our culture tells us that owning a sports car is a sign of 'success', or virility, or something like. Freud would say compensating for a perceived lack in ourselves, and I wouldn't entirely disagree. If you are unhappy with your life, buy shit. It cheers you up. For a bit (Keynesian psychology, spend your way out of depression. Joke).

So under socialism when we are all much more rounded human beings I think the psychological flaws and insecurities that lead us acquire things to fill the voids (psychological or material) in our lives would be greatly lessened. Not totally eliminated because I don't see that as being possible, but much lessened.

Beyond that... where are these things coming from? Which factory, where the workers have to want to make Faberge eggs or Ferraris, is going to be able to persude enough of the rest of society that they should send metal and plastic and little shiny things or whatever to actually produce these things? If people want to make them, and other people want to support them in it, I don't see a problem, but I really don't see it as being very likely.

It's unimportant, in the end. If all the material shit is sorted out, then yeah, OK, suggest in your local soviet that the bicycle factory goes over to faberge egg production. I don't really care. I think you might be waiting a long time though (arguably, slightly less long than under capitalism however).

[Ele'ill]

A universe without scarcity would mean we don't exist in time, it is difficult to imagine what that would look like.

What?



At any rate, that obviously isn't what you meant but I still think in the world you imagine there would need to be some way to decide which want we will pursue next, or do you imagine a world where progress has ended?

It would be the world that most in the first world pretend they're living now. The difference is that the 1st world will be a planet called Earth and every human will have access to any service they need through out their life. People first.

[Robert]

I suspect that you're not actually looking for a serious answer. But I'll give you one anyway.
No, I was not trolling, I was really serious.


Why do people covet these things (I'd suspect not 'millions' but I'm happy to state that at the moment the number of people who want a sports car exceeds the number of sports cars)?

I'd suggest that there are several reasons. The main ones I'd say are:


1 - we gain comfort from unnecessary items because they re-assure us that we have financial security. Conspicious wealth is a safety net that can be traded in when times are hard, so they make us happy as a visual, tactile bank, like a squirrel knowing where his nuts are. Vital under capitalism, unnecessary under socialism. We have material security anyway, no need for Ferraris to prove it;

2 - our culture tells us that owning a sports car is a sign of 'success', or virility, or something like. Freud would say compensating for a perceived lack in ourselves, and I wouldn't entirely disagree. If you are unhappy with your life, buy shit. It cheers you up. Great thoughts. Sincerely. I'll never know whether a Ferrari will make me feel better about life, but I'll admit it would not make me "happy." Still, if you have one and want to give it away ... just sayin'....


For a bit (Keynesian psychology, spend your way out of depression. Joke).Outstanding, young man!:laugh:


Beyond that... where are these things coming from? Which factory, where the workers have to want to make Faberge eggs or Ferraris, is going to be able to persude enough of the rest of society that they should send metal and plastic and little shiny things or whatever to actually produce these things? If people want to make them, and other people want to support them in it, I don't see a problem, but I really don't see it as being very likely.

It's unimportant, in the end. If all the material shit is sorted out, then yeah, OK, suggest in your local soviet that the bicycle factory goes over to faberge egg production. I don't really care. I think you might be waiting a long time though (arguably, slightly less long than under capitalism however).Very clear and thoughtful post. Thanks. I may have fallen into a trap by mentioning Ferraris, as they are already subject to all the criticism you mention. I should have stuck to precious woods, gems and endangered wildlife (wood ducks, for example, are beautiful and delicious, and I just don't trust the People to do anything but hunt them to extinction, absent armed game wardens to tell them "if you kill that bird, I'll fine you".)

Obviously commercial fishing corporations need to be watched even closer. By a government.

[Blake's Baby]

But there are no fishing corporations under socialism, there are just workers who fish; and because there is no 'exchange' there's no necessity for workers to fish for endangered species in order to 'increase their profits' because there are no profits.

However, I think that's probably moot, as I'm rather of the opinion that we'll be pretty much vegetarian after the revolution, partly because you can feed about 30 times as many people that way, thereby decisively ending the 'oh we havene't got enough food to feed Africa' argument for a good several hundred years to come.

[Robert]

But there are no fishing corporations under socialism

I understand. Thanks.

[LeftSideDown]

because there are no profits.

I'd hate to live in a completely stagnant economy (which your "there are no profits" statement implies). No profits = comparatively resources aren't being put to better use now then they were before... profits are largely comparative in function, I think.

[Blake's Baby]

But that's because you don't understand how resource allocation would work under socialism. There is no 'stagnant economy' because there is no economy. People decide how resources will be allocated. Then they're allocated. Simple as.

There's still surplus labour, because there'll always be people who can't work but need to be supported (the old, the sick, children) and there's likely to be a component of labour to build up a suplus for future allocation, which you can think of as 'investment' if you like. But there is no profit to be expropriated by an owner, or to be exchangeed on the market, so there is necessity to over-exploit resources for finacial gain (there being no finances and no way of 'gaining' through trade).

I suppose it's possible that in dealing with 'need' rather than production for the market it may be possible that some resources may be over-exploited anyway; but I believe (and it is just a belief) that the maximum input into decision-making will result in the most sensible strategies being persued in terms of resource exploitation.

[LeftSideDown]

But that's because you don't understand how resource allocation would work under socialism. There is no 'stagnant economy' because there is no economy. People decide how resources will be allocated. Then they're allocated. Simple as.

Economy = Study of human choices under condition of scarcity. Scarcity would still exist in a socialist "country" and humans would be making choices. There would be an economy.


There's still surplus labour, because there'll always be people who can't work but need to be supported (the old, the sick, children) and there's likely to be a component of labour to build up a suplus for future allocation, which you can think of as 'investment' if you like. But there is no profit to be expropriated by an owner, or to be exchangeed on the market, so there is necessity to over-exploit resources for finacial gain (there being no finances and no way of 'gaining' through trade).

Profit is merely an indication that some sector of the economy needs more investment. For instance if there is a corn farmer and a soybean farmer and the soybean farmer makes 1000 dollars profit and the corn farmer makes 100 well, next year, the corn farmer will probably at least some of his crops over to soybeans, increasing the supply and reducing price so that profit eventually comes to equal "normal profit" (that is economic profit (profit including non-accounting items, such as opportunity cost) is equal to 0).


I suppose it's possible that in dealing with 'need' rather than production for the market it may be possible that some resources may be over-exploited anyway; but I believe (and it is just a belief) that the maximum input into decision-making will result in the most sensible strategies being persued in terms of resource exploitation.

Need is relative. Need is subjective. 100 years ago 21st century medicine wasn't a need, and now it is. 400 years ago running water and electricity weren't needs, now they are. 1000 years ago three square meals a day weren't a need, now they are. Hell, three square meals isn't a need for me (I normally eat 1-2).

I think resource allocation is a job like being a doctor; an uninformed, or even an informed, majority still do not have the training a doctor has and they are, therefore, unfit to make medical decisions that risk lives.

[Blake's Baby]

Ah well. I hope you find out what you're 'fitted' to and do it in life then, for ever until you can't do it anymore.

Me, I believe that humans are capable of learning new things. That's why we aren't all still sitting on the Savannah waiting for the wildebeest to sweep past.

Scarcity probably would be rapidly eliminated under socialism. That's part of the point. We have the potential for vast increases in the material welbeing of the majority of people of the planet. We need socialism to organise things.

It's funny how you derive 'profit' from 'underinvestment'. I derive it from 'exploitation'. Presumably, in a factory, the year after the company makes a $19billion profit, all of its workers decide to become the company. No?

I'm not sure what the fact that the definition of 'needs' has changed alters the point I'm making. 400 years ago, people ate beans, cabbage and rancid meat if they could get it. Now, not so much. Doesn't mean 'food' isn't still a useful concept. Of course the definition of 'needs' changes. Under socialism however, we get to decide what those changes are, instead of merely being presented with a range of options by someone else.

If I don't want (need) a bag of crisps, then someone sayng 'what about chicken flavour? What about beef? Have you tried cheese and onion? How about salt and vinegar? You must like chilli cheese?' isn't really helping.

[Robert]

If I don't want (need) a bag of crisps, then someone sayng 'what about chicken flavour? What about beef? Have you tried cheese and onion? How about salt and vinegar? You must like chilli cheese?' isn't really helping.

Who is making crisps in the UK that no one wants?

[Obzervi]

"Overpopulation" is a myth propagated by racists who want to stop oppressed brown people in Third world countries from breeding. The problem lies not in the quantity of humans, but the amount of resources being consumed by each. The blame lies in First world countries with their ridiculous consumption rates it would take five earths just to provide the resources if everyone on the planet lived the same consumerist lifestyle.

[Blake's Baby]

To be fair, not just racists who want to stop 'brown people' breeding, also a whole bunch of non-racist people who want 'the lower orders' to stop breeding too.

The problem is always 'them' - Africans, Moslems, the ignorant, teenage mothers, gypsys, white trash - and never 'us' (whoever 'we' are, generally comfortably well-off people though).

[Bud Struggle]

And on the othe hand it's rather well proven that when people achieve a certain degree of afluence they have less children. If one is seriously worried about overpopulation the best way to decrease the number of children being born is to raise the income level of the would be parents.

[Ele'ill]

And on the othe hand it's rather well proven that when people achieve a certain degree of afluence they have less children. If one is seriously worried about overpopulation the best way to decrease the number of children being born is to raise the income level of the would be parents.

Or abolish capital.

[Blake's Baby]

Could be the same thing though. If we replace 'income' with 'access to socially constructed wealth'. 'Income' is just a specific form of 'socially constructed wealth'.